There is a leap, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. A fetus simply has no say over its outcome nor has it done anything to warrant extinguishing. This isn't about life being sacred. I tend to agree with early stage access to abortion, but that doesn't make your comparison less absurd. The freaking 2nd amendment?
Everything that isn't a person has no say. "Extinguishing" a fetus is no different than "extinguishing" any other living tissue, other than this one having the potential to become a person. I brought it up because the same demographic that holds up a "life is sacred" mantra has no problem killing a teenager who breaks in their home. It is phony sanctimonious bullshit to pretend that this is about life being sacred. It clearly isn't.
Fertilized eggs that fail to implant are just that. Now whether that situation being induced should be defined as abortion or birth control is debatable in my mind. Since you drug out the old living tissue line to describe everything from a single celled zygote to a blastocyst, I'm guessing you call it birth control. That's fine. If you define pregnancy as starting from the time fertilization occurs and allow that the drug may prevent implantation, and thereby effectively terminate the pregnancy as it cannot proceed without implantation. Depending on who you ask, both of the preceding assumptions may not be true. Pregnancy begins with either fertilization or implantation depending on who you ask. Somewhat popular belief would have it that Plan B (and other pills) interferes with implantation, but literature seems to point the other way. I'd guess this is likely because IUDs might actually do this and are categorized similarity. I actually lean toward these (the pills anyway) being contraception since they act to delay ovulation and prevent fertilization and aren't necessarily designed to force the sloughing off of the endometrial lining. When I first heard about the morning after pill, this was the method of action that was described. I'm guessing this may have been the case with an earlier pill and also contributes to the belief that the current pills do this.
War is totally analogous. The more appropriate way to honor life would have been to leave Hitler alone. Concentration camps, crimes against humanity, etc. are irrelevant. We can't kill any Nazi soldiers as it might interfere with our abortion debates.
other than? Your second paragraph is just another straw man style ludicrous shift. Nobody is OK with killing someone, but again, it's still pursuant to the deceased having acted.
I can respect IP's position, but no one I know goes "So, how are you and your fetus doing today?" It is always "How is your baby? How are you?" And if we are going by cognitive ability only, when do we cut it off? Obviously a baby that is born could have been born a day earlier with little difference in its development. And who here remembers being 1 day old? Do newborns have any cognitive abilities outside of being able to cry? Mostly they are a bundle of reflexes, utterly incapable of surviving even a day without parental help. Yet few would promote infanticide. So when is the cut off date? Some claim conception, but I have a hard time with that. Cells split, forming twins and are reabsorbed often at this level. The miscarriage rate with no knowledge by the mother at this stage is very high. Humans, compared to most other animals, have a very hard time getting pregnant and maintaining that pregnancy. I would argue that once you have brain and organ development, it is now a human being, and should be protected by the rights that all humans have. It is no longer potential, it is now a human. This means, by about week 8, everything is now working and the embryo becomes a fetus, and is now a full-fledged human being. I would be interested to know if IP has any sort of cut off as to when a fetus should be protected.
yup. my kids, and others here, were in the nicu for 5 weeks because they were premature. we were very lucky they weren't born 5 weeks before that as well, but if it had happened they would have lived and likely wouldn't have had many serious long term problems. arguing that it becomes a human the second it comes out of the vagina is rather ridiculous.
PC or not, it doesn't have to be my business in order for me to care...to me, justifying abortion by determing what it can or can't do at a certain stage is ridiculous because those boundaries/limitations are subjective. Physiologically dependent or not it's alive. The issue I have in this (Foster) situation is that it's a potential inconvenience for him and bump in the road for his family so...get rid of it. Why were those things not considered prior to having the affair?
In the early stages, it is no more alive than any piece of tissue. There is nothing "PC" about my argument. Those things should be considered before hand, but there is nothing wrong with the procedure itself early on in a pregnancy and it isn't in any way "bad" or "evil" to talk about all of the possibilities in a difficult situation.
I know at 18 weeks my kid looked a miniature human that would even respond to stimuli. The first ultrasound was just a mass of tissue with a heart though.
Tangent: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/..._4682085.html?utm_hp_ref=religion&ir=Religion The SOB got off easy. Forced termination is to me what all abortion is to some of you. It is hijacking a woman's body and life to selfishly serve him. Say what you want about Foster, but nothing about his request was offensive to me. THIS is offensive.
